The question to ask about The Italians

[gamer78]

I think Stalin priority in here -in case Germany attack Turkey- would be the Straits not Japan. Historically Tsarist Russia goal was Scandinavia or Constantinople. I foresee if first WW'2 fighting take place in Turkey, in the end Turkey to be divided into 4 Soviet Republics, rest will go to Siberia. [:)] Assuming Germany will never win the war. As a victor Soviets would decide the fate.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

I can't see why the nazis would need all these weird detours. The original attack or plan already was good enough. Yes, It was.

Except some particular details (operations in the Balkans pre Barbarossa and panzers diverted to Kiev area from Army Group Centre), the plan worked: destruction of countless Soviet divisions and armies. The amazing fact is not that Hitler's hordes failed. The astonishing fact is that the Soviet colossus somehow survived such utterly catastrophic blows 😳

And this was when the nazis *concentrated* their forces. Now you somehow propose a scheme in which concentration of force is not evident. + 1 year to fortify the border, Frontier districts and producing war materiel... And I'm talking about the USSR.

Think about this. The Red Army could pull both a "Finland" aka a miserable failure or a "Khalkin Gol" aka the utter trashing of Japanese Army units.

So + 1 year, what Red Army are you gunna meet? Wanna gamble? Are you sure? 😝😝😝

‌And besides all these detours only would make sense if you weaken your future victim. I can't see how these operations would weaken them. I still see the Red flag over the Reichstag in '43 or '44. Serves Hitler's hordes right, for not concentrating his forces and destroying (actually trying) his main enemy or future "India", as it's clear Adolph wanted to emulate the British Empire. The USSR was to be the "jewel". Apéritifs (Spain, Turkey)? What for?

warspite1

Hitler wanted Lebensraum - that was his raison d'etre. But one can understand the logic behind the 'detours' (even if Hitler couldn't see it because he was fixated on the east). But these what-ifs assume his admirals and generals could bring him round.

Hitler wanted to attack the USSR yesterday but there was a little island nation off northwest Europe that was peeing in his cornflakes. Napoleon made the mistake of invading Russia with the British unbeaten and active in Spain. The dreaded two front war. The Kaiser had the same problem.

So two schools of thought;

Attack the USSR and deal with them as quickly as possible - ignore the British and let them carry on making limited trouble in the desert, over Germany, and on the periphery of Hitler's Europe - and accept they may be a potential source of supply for the USSR. This course of action means they can't afford to get things wrong, Germany simply hasn't got the industrial capacity and manpower to be fighting on two fronts for an extended period.

OR

Learn from history, don't risk a two-front war. Before turning on the USSR, knock Britain out of the war so that they can then concentrate exclusively on the Soviets. If Britain can't be defeated directly because the RAF and navy are too strong, then perhaps indirectly by defeating them in the only place they can take the war to the Axis (Desert) and in so doing, take key territories that will make the management of their empire harder, their own survival more difficult AND in so doing, attract would-be nations to the German cause.

Which would be the better course of action? Well we know how things panned out don't we? We know that the USSR (with help from the US/UK) was able to stop the Germans, so when looking at the two options its interesting to consider what could have happened had the alternative approach been tried.


What ifs are fun to explore but it helps if the scenarios are properly thought out and considered. Of course what is 'proper' none of us can really know, but it helps to try and properly think through the various options. What is irritating are simplistic pronouncements like 'blitz through Turkey and Spain' with no appreciation of what that means from a political, military or economic standpoint.

You and I have both made the point that in taking this extreme course of action, even if Germany was successful and they achieve a wiping out of the British from the Mediterranean and the Middle East (and in the tight timescale envisaged), what is the effect on the German armed forces come 1942? Bo Rearguard and I have both made the point that changes to historical events for one side, does not mean the other side has to take its historical path - the situation is dynamic and one can expect reactions.

Without wishing to sound like GoT (actually I do but the references have been ignored [;)]) there is only one war that matters in Europe. In real life the British refusal to give in was crucial to deflect the Germans both pre and during Barbarossa. Its quite astonishing the number of artillery pieces the Germans had to keep in Germany - artillery that was sorely missed on the Eastern Front. It's eye opening to realise just what % of German aircraft was not in the USSR but having to be employed in the West and the Mediterranean.

But the war that broke the German Army was that in the East. This will decide the fate of Hitler. Even if this simple 'blitz through Spain and Turkey' is successful, nothing has really changed - and certainly not for the better - in terms of the Eastern Front, only that the USSR has had another year to prepare, the Germans finite resources have been further reduced and worst of all perhaps, their attack on the Straits would almost certainly (in my view) bring retaliation from Stalin. And no I don't mean an all out attack. But I do think they would come to the aid of Turkey, I do believe they would immediately stop all shipments of oil, wheat and other resources to Germany and the supply of Turkish Chromium to Germany would immediately be put at risk.

So suddenly (and assuming Spain was dealt with first under this twin blitzkrieg) Gibraltar has fallen but that hasn't radically changed things for the CW in the desert, and now the right pincer of the 'blitz' has been stopped from getting anywhere near Syria and beyond, by a threat to its flanks in Turkey.

Sure, its possible that everything goes well for this 'blitz' and all operations are mopped up super quick by autumn 1941 say. Its been possible because Stalin not only doesn't get involved and is happy for the vital Straits to be in German control [8|] but he doesn't stop any resources going to Germany as per the NS Pact. As a German army starts to build up in Eastern Turkey, Stalin, other than continuing to build up his own forces, simply looks on. Losses to precious aircraft, tanks, trucks etc have been negligible. Everything has gone like clockwork for the Germans.

I say again, even if your dream scenario goes as planned. What has changed?

If everything has gone so well, to the point of ridiculousness, for the Germans they will be a bit stronger materially. Manpower wise they won't be in any better position. They will be less concentrated having to stretch their army to Turkey.

As RangerJoe points out the Soviets will have had a full year to build up their T-34's etc. They will be better fortified. They will have better trained troops. We are talking 1942 so the differential in quality will favour the Soviets.

What about the British? Well they don't have Malta or Egypt to worry about and we'll assume they put extra troops - even some tanks and Hurricanes (or whisper it - Spitfires)! in the Far East and India. Remember, not only are the replacements that went to Egypt now surplus, but all the tanks, aircraft and supplies that went to the Soviet Union are available. Well that's bad news for the Japanese given how close Malaya was..... Imagine Malaya/Singapore with a few Hurricane/Spitfire squadrons, with a few FAA and Coastal Command squadrons and an armoured division or two.......

But moreover, when the fighting comes between the Soviets and the Germans, there will be no more fighting for limited RN resource as to whether to supply the Soviet Union or the Mediterranean. Arctic convoys are going to be bigger and more frequent.

And of course the biggie, the game changer. Assuming they haven't come in earlier because Japan got all excited by the German 'success', the US enter in December 1941* - before the Germans have even had a chance to launch Barbarossa..... Remember about things being dynamic, fluid and changing events affecting both sides? Well the US have a blank slate to work with......

....The French in Northwest Africa are still smarting about how Syria was trampled over....

.... the British still have possessions in the horn of Africa, India and the Middle East from which to counter the German garrison (yet more German troops tied up and away from the Soviet Union) in Egypt....

.... Did Germany take the precaution of occupying Portugal? Might want to think about that Adolf....

If I was Adolf I wouldn't be feelin' this development....

* Roosevelt hasn't got the hindsight we've got re the performance of the USSR. With the Med gone, surely even the isolationists aren't going to pretend they don't need to get involved without Hitler declaring war on them. But again, worst case and let's say they are that dumb, then Roosevelt isn't and he is going to be giving the Soviets and CW everything he can. Historically Torch wasn't until November 1942 so again, even here, nothing changes for the better for Germany even if the US don't join in a shooting war immediately.

[Bo Rearguard]

ORIGINAL: warspite1


And of course the biggie, the game changer. Assuming they haven't come in earlier because Japan got all excited by the German 'success', the US enter in December 1941* - before the Germans have even had a chance to launch Barbarossa..... Remember about things being dynamic, fluid and changing events affecting both sides? Well the US have a blank slate to work with......

* Roosevelt hasn't got the hindsight we've got re the performance of the USSR. With the Med gone, surely even the isolationists aren't going to pretend they don't need to get involved without Hitler declaring war on them. But again, worst case and let's say they are that dumb, then Roosevelt isn't and he is going to be giving the Soviets and CW everything he can. Historically Torch wasn't until November 1942 so again, even here, nothing changes for the better for Germany even if the US don't join in a shooting war immediately.

This. All this stretching the war years out does is probably guarantee that Germany, not Japan gets the atomic treatment first.

Over time, I've seen people use the benefit of 20/20 historical hindsight to craft scenario after scenario that bends reality and national motivations to try and conjure up a way the Germany somehow wins. Most of these scenarios just hand-wave away difficulties like logistics, geography and politics. The fact of the matter is that Nazi Germany as a nation, was simply too small and too limited in resources to take on the British Commonwealth and two future superpowers at once. Hitler never seemed to grasp that the four most populous countries or territories in the world — China, India, the Soviet Union, and the United States — were either fighting against the Axis or opposed to its agendas. Never before or since had all these peoples (well over 1 billion total) fought at once and on the same side.

Not even Napoleon had declared war in succession on so many great powers without any idea how to destroy their ability to make war, or, worse yet, in the delusion that tactical victories would depress stronger enemies into submission. To their credit, the Allies, including the Soviet Union on most occasions, usually avoided starting theater wars that ended in multi-year infantry quagmires. In contrast, Japan, Germany, and Italy respectively bogged down in China, the Soviet Union, and North Africa & the Balkans.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I'll see what I can dig out. But if what came to pass is what I expect would come to pass should Germany threaten the Straits, there is only one nation that will be making use of this "extensive, high volume rail network" in the mountains of East Turkey ....and it's not Germany...

Again, if the Soviets preemptively go to war with Germany without any invasion they are a very different animal than the historical one of WWII.

I repeat: What could be expected to happen? Nothing. And you don't seem to realise that Petain didn't sign an armistice with Japan?

They made peace with the Axis. Japan is part of that pact.

A couple of 'minor neutrals'..... Ah I can see how you approach this. So you think that taking on the Spanish and the Turks (with, at minimum, assistance from the CW) will result in little to no losses?

Insignificant losses to what was suffered in Barbarossa. And they are minor powers. The Soviets are one of the few majors.

You also assume that the Desert War will end despite the fact that in taking Gibraltar (eventually) Germany hasn't really hurt the British (in terms of Egypt) one bit. It hasn't altered the supply problems for Axis troops in North Africa (although if time effort and resource is used to take Malta then there will be an easing of supply situation at key times compared to historical - the counter of course being the saving to the CW in airmen, aircraft, ships and sailors and which can be put to use in the Delta and elsewhere).

It will end when Suez falls. (And then Suez is gone for years - the Germans will destroy the locks.)

Yes. The Germans are going to be weaker - it is only a question of by how much. They will be losing yet more combat-experienced troops and airmen for potentially negligible gain before the big one. Production may replace the units - but with the Luftwaffe and the armoured divisions charging around like a blue arse flies in hostile terrain, losing aircraft, tanks, precious trucks left right and centre - and that assumes things go well and they only have natural wastage to worry about - but it won't be able to replace the veterans.

No. They will be much stronger than they were in 1942.

But of course of course this assumes that the Soviets are passive despite (if the Germans are successful) they are gradually being surrounded and, most of all, have the Straits being threatened. During the negotiations before during and particularly after the NS Pact you don't think that the USSR pushed the straits question at every opportunity? You genuinely seem to believe that Germany would be simply allowed to take control of the Straits and Stalin would do absolutely nothing? It truly beggars belief.

Stalin proved to be remarkably dense on Germany's threat, historically. And "threat to the Straits"? The Turks possessed the straits. Why would Germany be a greater threat on that matter?

And if Stalin takes the only obvious route open to him once the Straits are threatened, where does that leave this simple 'Blitzkrieg' heading through Turkey, Syria and Palestine now?

They'll still be the 1941 Soviets at best. Actually, probably weaker than that, due to being the aggressor.

This action has cost Germany, far earlier than real life, a huge source of oil, wheat and other resources. It takes the Germans further away from the one prize that matters. The Soviets - as in the extreme north - have the internal lines of communication. They can switch units from front to front. This is most certainly not the case for the German troops in Turkey.

No. At the same time - about June, 1941. And it takes them much closer to the prize that matters most in any war with the Soviets - Baku.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

So you are referring to a game such as Third Reich as your basis?

No. Much more sophisticated than that.

Guerilla warfare will tie down 7 to 10 men for one insurgent. That is a lot more than just slowing down supplies.

But it still doesn't amount to more than an irritant. Plenty of Soviet partisans but supplies still got through.

The Turks ended up in alliance with the Greeks and the Slavs. Turkey declared war on the AXIS in World War II. The Turks are still in an alliance with the Greeks and now the Slavs. The Turks gave up their idea of an empire.

At the very end of the war! They had no choice then.

Let's be clear: The Russians have always wanted a path for their Black Sea Fleet to get to the Med. The only way they can get that is through Turkey. Similarly, the Turks are awfully close to the vital Baku fields. Both sides viewed each other as mortal enemies. For good reason. And, do I really have to explain the relationship between the Greeks and the Turks?!

The British already had Iraq, Iran was no problem since they replaced the Shah.

And the Arabs wanted them out - out of Egypt as well. No discernable impact on the Desert War or elsewhere.

...most of the Italians Army had little motivation to occupy German gains.

Only if they wanted to win the war.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Again, if the Soviets preemptively go to war with Germany without any invasion they are a very different animal than the historical one of WWII.

warspite1

Not necessarily. This is not a country declaring war for ***** and giggles, this is a country going to war because their interests are under threat.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

They made peace with the Axis. Japan is part of that pact.

warspite1

I am assuming you didn’t believe that comment when you wrote it. They signed an armistice with Germany, they signed a separate armistice with Italy. Please tell me where in the tripartite agreement is specifies that none of the signatories that haven’t signed a separate armistice are allowed to be beastly to the French. Sorry but that was really lame.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Insignificant losses to what was suffered in Barbarossa. And they are minor powers. The Soviets are one of the few majors.

warspite1

Insignificant losses to what was suffered in Barbarossa….. Well of course in comparison the losses in men and equipment would not be the same. No one suggested it would be. But that is not the point. The point is we know Germany’s position 1941-45. The numbers of men, regardless of when the war is fought, is finite. Germany never had enough – they are going to have even less. And no, that doesn’t mean they are going to lose Barbarossa numbers in 1941 fighting the Spanish and Turkish - but they would lose men, tanks, trucks and aircraft (and more importantly aircrew, infantry, tankers etc) and they can’t afford that…. meanwhile the Soviets lose nothing.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

It will end when Suez falls. (And then Suez is gone for years - the Germans will destroy the locks.)

warspite1

And you’ve yet to make a case for Suez falling.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

No. They will be much stronger than they were in 1942.

warspite1

I think you are missing the point. There are two reasons why you could say in isolation that Germany would be stronger. Both are of no consequence here.

They will have more men to start (alternative) Barbarossa than started (real life) Blau. But that is because the two countries aren’t at war until 1942 (possible Turkish intervention excepted). And in the same way so the Soviets would be much stronger to the same degree. But in relative terms, and based on manpower being a finite resource, Germany are weaker.

The Germans will have time to have likely got rid of the PzKw I and II and have more PzKw III and IV and so there will be a qualitative improvement. They may (depending on how things go in Spain and Turkey) have quantitatively more too. But the Soviets will have a huge quantitative (tank production for the Soviets outstripped that of Germany) and qualitative (T-34/KV1 are better than the PzKw IV) increases on real life 1941. Same applies generally across the board with weapons of all types.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Stalin proved to be remarkably dense on Germany's threat, historically. And "threat to the Straits"? The Turks possessed the straits. Why would Germany be a greater threat on that matter?

warspite1

Stalin proved remarkably dense – I’ll certainly give you that. But then they were also the ones benefitting more from the NS Pact than Hitler believed he’d given away. But now, with the Straits threatened, the boot is on the other foot. Like with the second point above I don’t really understand why you would ask the next question “The Turks possessed the straits. Why would Germany be a greater threat on that matter?” Was that serious? So you don’t see any reason why a ‘minor’ power like Turkey possessing the Straits (and there is an agreement on usage) is ANY different to Fascist Nazi Germany owning the Straits?

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

They'll still be the 1941 Soviets at best. Actually, probably weaker than that, due to being the aggressor.

warspite1

No. The Germans piling into Turkey will have one objective – Suez. But now the Soviets have entered the fray. That means the German supply lines are threatened and so more Germans will be sucked into the country (away from the main front which has already been stretched) or the attack on Suez is held up. The 1942 Soviets are 1942 Soviets. The Germans have no naval assets to speak of, their supply route is vulnerable.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

No. At the same time - about June, 1941. And it takes them much closer to the prize that matters most in any war with the Soviets - Baku.

warspite1

So near and yet so far….. The Soviets can afford to fight a delaying campaign once the Germans are ready to move. The terrain favours the defenders, the lack of rail and road comms make the German attack anything but easy.

[RangerJoe]

The original canal featured a single-lane waterway with passing locations in the Ballah Bypass and the Great Bitter Lake.[3] It contains no lock system, with seawater flowing freely through it. In general, the canal north of the Bitter Lakes flows north in winter and south in summer. South of the lakes, the current changes with the tide at Suez.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Canal

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

It will end when Suez falls. (And then Suez is gone for years - the Germans will destroy the locks.)

Those must be good pharmaceuticals!

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The original canal featured a single-lane waterway with passing locations in the Ballah Bypass and the Great Bitter Lake.[3] It contains no lock system, with seawater flowing freely through it. In general, the canal north of the Bitter Lakes flows north in winter and south in summer. South of the lakes, the current changes with the tide at Suez.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Canal

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

It will end when Suez falls. (And then Suez is gone for years - the Germans will destroy the locks.)

Those must be good pharmaceuticals!

warspite1

And its this sort of lack of attention to detail that is so frustrating. And no I don't mean not knowing there are no locks on the canal - after all it's not a prerequisite of understanding WWII that one has to know the waterways and canals of the world intimately [;)].

No the reason that comment is so disappointing is that it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. So let's roll with this simple 'blitz through Spain and Turkey' for the moment and say that Suez does fall.

Firstly the only party that would seek to destroy/block the canal would be the CW once they realised that Egypt could not be held. If the Germans were lucky enough to capture the canal before the CW had an opportunity to render it hors de combat, then they would thank their lucky stars.

Why on earth, and for what possible reason, do you say the Axis would not want Suez operable? Access to a working canal would mean access for the Regia Marina to the Red Sea, Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean..... it would allow Kriegsmarine u-boats and raiders much quicker access to these areas... it would allow easier comms via sub between Japan and the EuroAxis.

[Bo Rearguard]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Why on earth, and for what possible reason, do you say the Axis would not want Suez operable? Access to a working canal would mean access for the Regia Marina to the Red Sea, Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean..... it would allow Kriegsmarine u-boats and raiders much quicker access to these areas... it would allow easier comms via sub between Japan and the EuroAxis.

Good question. It seems to me you would only destroy something that valuable if you were in full retreat...or planning to be. Maybe he thinks it's like Leningrad which Hitler wanted to mindlessly obliterate after its capture? Or maybe he thinks it's never to early to implement the Nero Decree.

[wodin]

I also wonder if he hadn't invaded Russia and instead threw everything into Afrika again would things have been different.

I wonder if Stalin would have attacked Germany as it seems it may have done once everything was ready. Some say !an have happened around 44 or so. If they had I imagine all Europe would have been occupied by Russia, and a totally different cold war would have panned out...

[RangerJoe]

Think if the Bismark would have turned around after sinking the Hood. That would have been a victory right there. Then sail with the Tirpitz to raid, along with other ships. Think of the Royal Naval reaction from Gibralter. Then the Italian fleet may have been able to make a quick sortie in an attempt at capturing The Rock. If Malta was taken before that or, if not, it could have been taken later, then the North Afrikan supply routes would have been safer for the Axis. Then four panzer divisions along with motorized infantry to take North Afrika.

Even if the Suez was blocked for a time, Red Sea ports would have helped the Axis. The Axis would be threatening more in the Indian Ocean, forcing the Allies to have more military forces there or lose positions there.

[Zorch]

Think if Giant Zombie Killer Penguins had invaded Scandinavia and cut off the supply of Swedish fish to the world. Germany would have been forced to sign a Non-Aggression Pact with Russia and invade Norway. Oh wait; they did that. [:D]

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Not necessarily. This is not a country declaring war for ***** and giggles, this is a country going to war because their interests are under threat.

But it's still not a country going to war because of a massive invasion putting everyone's lives at risk. And the threat to their interests would not be obvious to the common people. They would be a whole different animal than the historical one.

I am assuming you didn’t believe that comment when you wrote it. They signed an armistice with Germany, they signed a separate armistice with Italy. Please tell me where in the tripartite agreement is specifies that none of the signatories that haven’t signed a separate armistice are allowed to be beastly to the French. Sorry but that was really lame.

I did mean it. Colonial possessions are not the same as home territory. Regardless, IF the French take any action, they lose the Vichy zone. Reason enough to do nothing.

Insignificant losses to what was suffered in Barbarossa….. Well of course in comparison the losses in men and equipment would not be the same. No one suggested it would be. But that is not the point. The point is we know Germany’s position 1941-45. The numbers of men, regardless of when the war is fought, is finite. Germany never had enough – they are going to have even less. And no, that doesn’t mean they are going to lose Barbarossa numbers in 1941 fighting the Spanish and Turkish - but they would lose men, tanks, trucks and aircraft (and more importantly aircrew, infantry, tankers etc) and they can’t afford that…. meanwhile the Soviets lose nothing.

Each year a new class of recruits becomes available. So, the Germans may have more manpower in 1942 than in 1941, because 1941 was so light a year. And, the Soviets remain under peace-time production (or far less production than historically even if they declare war).

And you’ve yet to make a case for Suez falling.

With a direct overland route, they can use overwhelming force. Turkey gets an Army Group. At least an army goes for Suez. And God help the 8th Army if it's deep into Libya!

Note that once Suez falls - much before that, in fact - the RN has to abandon the Med or risk being trapped. That means that the RM can bypass Turkish rail lines via shipping from Athens to Damascus.

The Germans will have time to have likely got rid of the PzKw I and II and have more PzKw III and IV and so there will be a qualitative improvement. They may (depending on how things go in Spain and Turkey) have quantitatively more too.

Stalin proved remarkably dense – I’ll certainly give you that.

After the war he famously said something like: "Together we would have been invincible." And he admired Hitler for the night of the long knives, etc. "That's what you do with your political enemies - you shoot them!" It's going to take quite a shock to dissuade him from that idea.

So you don’t see any reason why a ‘minor’ power like Turkey possessing the Straits (and there is an agreement on usage) is ANY different to Fascist Nazi Germany owning the Straits?

No. Soviet commercial use of the straits would not be blocked. And the Turks were not going to allow the Black Sea fleet to pass them.

No. The Germans piling into Turkey will have one objective – Suez.

They want Eastern Turkey as well. They'll head that way too.

But now the Soviets have entered the fray. That means the German supply lines are threatened and so more Germans will be sucked into the country (away from the main front which has already been stretched) or the attack on Suez is held up.

A full army group will be more than adequate for all contingencies.

The 1942 Soviets are 1942 Soviets.

This is 1941. And the 1941 Soviets are the 1941 Soviets.

The Germans have no naval assets to speak of, their supply route is vulnerable.

The rail net.

So near and yet so far….. The Soviets can afford to fight a delaying campaign once the Germans are ready to move. The terrain favours the defenders, the lack of rail and road comms make the German attack anything but easy.

If they declare war in 1941, they will be easy meat. If they stay neutral, then 1942 opens up with strategic surprise - big shock bonuses at the start. They will be half way there before the Soviets can even react.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The original canal featured a single-lane waterway with passing locations in the Ballah Bypass and the Great Bitter Lake.[3] It contains no lock system, with seawater flowing freely through it. In general, the canal north of the Bitter Lakes flows north in winter and south in summer. South of the lakes, the current changes with the tide at Suez.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Canal

OK. I didn't know that. I still think they could, given time, do quite a bit of damage to the canal.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Why on earth, and for what possible reason, do you say the Axis would not want Suez operable?

To make sure the RN never gets back into the Med by that route.

[RFalvo69]

I guess that this thread sums up the discourse about Italians in WWII in the best possible way: page 4, and the walls of words are about Barbarossa, Turkey, the composition of German panzer divisions, the RN, the Bismarck... [:D]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Why on earth, and for what possible reason, do you say the Axis would not want Suez operable?

To make sure the RN never gets back into the Med by that route.

warspite1

I started typing out responses to your latest answers and then I saw this. I thought the 'French signing an armistice with the Axis' was somewhat silly. But then the more I read through your latest posts, the more I realised you are giving yourself serious credibility issues..... and then I saw this comment.

This is genuinely one of the [I need to be careful with my wording here - let's be kind] childlike comments I’ve ever read. In your dream scenario the CW has been kicked out of the Mediterranean, from Gib to Suez, there is no more CW presence. Malta has fallen. The Germans are almost masters of all they survey in Europe. There is no US in the war and the USSR have yet to be attacked, the British army in Gib have been beaten, the army in Egypt have been beaten….in defending these places the army, navy and air force have taken huge punishment..... and you genuinely think the Germans would worry about the Royal Navy sailing up the Red Sea and what? Storming the Suez Canal line astern? When you wanted to cover up your rather limited initial comment you come up with this as a genuine likely action by the British - and yet they couldn't take on the RM in case they got trapped in the East Med. It's just a case of any old nonsense that comes into your head being written.

No, childlike doesn't he begin to cut it. I see no point trying to debate honestly and sensibly when you respond with ill-considered - indeed totally unconsidered - nonsense about Army Groups (why not have a couple in Turkey?), and the number of Germans born between 1941 and 1945 increasing if the Germans attack in 1942, apparently the Soviets last year of peacetime production wasn't as great as the German's in the same period (love to know where that stat came from) and Stalin being quite happy about Germany occupying the Straits because there will be a legally binding agreement for all commercial traffic....

That's not debating that just embarrassing.

[TulliusDetritus]

If they declare war in 1941, they will be easy meat. If they stay neutral, then 1942 opens up with strategic surprise - big shock bonuses at the start. They will be half way there before the Soviets can even react

So the wonderful ultra mighty nazis would use sum sort of ninja powers, I see.


You'd make a weird commander, underestimating your foes... And no weakness at all on your side.

Ok, the nazis are gunna take ova the world, they're unstoppable, I surrender right now:

https://youtu.be/Iqm_4VIPIrw

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

If they declare war in 1941, they will be easy meat. If they stay neutral, then 1942 opens up with strategic surprise - big shock bonuses at the start. They will be half way there before the Soviets can even react

So the wonderful ultra mighty nazis would use sum sort of ninja powers, I see.


You'd make a weird commander, underestimating your foes... And no weakness at all on your side.

Ok, the nazis are gunna take ova the world, they're unstoppable, I surrender right now:

https://youtu.be/Iqm_4VIPIrw

warspite1

Ah but remember the Germans can afford to employ a whole army group in Turkey apparently and - presumably because they didn't attack in 1941 - they have hundreds of thousands of extra men to fill the massive great big whole in Army Group North/Centre/South that Army Group Turkey was drawn from...... Its just fantasist stuff.

[RangerJoe]

Those must be very good pharmaceuticals. [:D]